When they ban abortion again, I'll just make sure to use a vinager/holy water mixture to make sure the thing is baptized

Honestly, no one wants to have an abortion. I'd be pretty devastated if a girl aborted my child. I think it's up to the individual, but I'd never want to be involved in one personally. It's also a shame that some people take it so lightly, getting multiple abortions and thinking nothing of it.

No and I wasn't really disagreeing with you either. I just can see them all having aneurysms over phrasing it so bluntly and I got a chuckle out of it. The pearl-clutching would be entertaining to me.

Haha, indeed. The argument has been presented before and they despise it. The big problem with framing the debate in terms of life/non-life is that it caters to the arcane notion of the "sanctity" of human life. It's also impossible to find some non-arbitrary, ethically forceful demarcation criterion between what constitutes life from non-life.

You don't think it's a problem if someone abuses it? I feel like it should be a moral decision on the part of everyone involved.

I don't know what you mean. You mean women controlling when and where they have children? No, I do not think this is a problem. As for what you feel, it is irrelevant. While your sperm may have contributed to it, it is the woman that has to deal with the consequences and, therefore, has the right to do whatever she feel she must do. In other words, you are just a spectator and are of little importance to those actually involved in the situation.

I don't know what you mean. You mean women controlling when and where they have children? No, I do not think this is a problem. As for what you feel, it is irrelevant. While your sperm may have contributed to it, it is the woman that has to deal with the consequences and, therefore, has the right to do whatever she feel she must do. In other words, you are just a spectator and are of little importance to those actually involved in the situation.

Fatherhood is an important role. I'd much sooner raise a child alone than have it aborted without my consideration. I mean, for all intents and purposes, I'm pro-choice, but on a peronal level I feel there's much more to it than a "medical procedure", and the father certainly loses something in the child. My daughter's mom actually made an appointment to have an abortion (without my knowledge), but thankfully she didn't go through with it.

I'd much sooner raise a child alone than have it aborted without my consideration..

This is going to seem like an ad hominem and I assure you that it is not: You do not matter in a situation such as this. You say that you would rather raise the child, but you give no thought to what a woman must go through in order to bring a child to term, how it affects their lives, their minds, their livelihoods, etc. You are making your feelings paramount, while simultaneously acting as though pregnancy is a minor affair. There are women out there who simply do not want to have children for whatever reason and a man should not stand between them and that decision precisely because of the degree of labor involved solely on the part of the woman.
And, to make it more personal, I was in a situation in which a former girlfriend was pregnant. She asked me what we should do and I told her that it isn't a matter of "we", it is her that must bear the burden of pregnancy and that I, because I am a man, can only operate in a supporting role for whatever decision she makes.

I understand all that. I'm just saying it's not as black and white as you implied in your earlier post. For most people (men included) it is a very emotional decision to be a part of, and with good reason.

How do you simply "not mind" when you believe abortion in those instances to be the murder of an innocent human life? You can say it's a step in the right direction, but as far as you're concerned, what's the difference between a woman getting an abortion because she was raped and a woman getting one for an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex?

I'm not saying that the practical effect was any different from a sellout, but I do now realize that he chose his words very carefully there. He did not actually endorse child murder here. He made two very rigid statements of fact in which he invoked only his running-mate's name in relation to the policy(during the debate). Perhaps this was the only way he felt he could roll out of this one and still have a chance to get into the white house and do his Catholic duty to defend life from one of the most powerful offices in the country?

In the interview cited, he qualified the word "comfortable" with the word "because" and so the question we must ask is, is 93% less babies murdered a step in the right direction? At least quantitatively it is, and perhaps that's the mental reservation he was using when he made that statement. Perhaps he regrets that statement and has confessed it? Perhaps it was a valid implementation of the church's teaching on permitted mental reservations and no confession was necessary? I suppose there's no way of knowing for sure. I'm not trying to desperately defend what I know is an unfortunate ticket. Obviously there's nothing good about having to choose between a so-called Christian who actively endorses abortion paid by the state, and a Mormon heretic who will probably kill less of the unborn (even if only because he knows he has a mandate to do so from conservatives that he must honor a little in order to get reelected) who happens to have an apparently prolife catholic as a running mate who has historically opposed 100% of abortions and now is doing verbal gymnastics due to the conflict in their positions on exceptions.

I know that's not a good situation for someone with my views on this matter. It's horrible. But I'm just trying to give this guy a little benefit of the doubt. I'm sure I could turn out to be completely wrong. But when I see him choose his words so carefully I can't help but have flashbacks to a seminar I attended on the church's teachings about making mental reservations as opposed to lying in situations that are of great importance. For example, nazis asking you if you're hiding and jews "in here" and by saying "no not hiding any in here" you mean the entry way. Again, I know it sounds far fetched. But as a Catholic I am obligated to at least make a mental note of his careful wording tonight.

I think the question to ask is whether Ryan is formally or materially (mediately or immediately?) cooperating with evil according to his beliefs by voluntarily assisting a superior (would-be President Romney) in enacting laws which would allow for the murder of unborn children in certain circumstances.

Haha, indeed. The argument has been presented before and they despise it. The big problem with framing the debate in terms of life/non-life is that it caters to the arcane notion of the "sanctity" of human life. It's also impossible to find some non-arbitrary, ethically forceful demarcation criterion between what constitutes life from non-life.

This same 'arcane' notion that is in the declaration of independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If the notion of the 'sanctity' of Human life is arcane, then how do you feel about its inclusion in the above statement from the Declaration of independence?

As the declaration holds life to be an unalienable right, then we as a nation have a responsibility to protect life as ardently as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not one's views on the sanctity of life differ is irrelevant.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If the notion of the 'sanctity' of Human life is arcane, then how do you feel about its inclusion in the above statement from the Declaration of independence?

As the declaration holds life to be an unalienable right, then we as a nation have a responsibility to protect life as ardently as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not one's views on the sanctity of life differ is irrelevant.

I couldn't care less what the DoI says. It was adopted in 1776, or over 200 and some odd years ago. Around the same time that, in the Constitution, it was declared that slaves are to be considered 3/5 persons. We have the ability to improve our ethical views over time by employing ever greater reasoning and moral considerations. Anyway, that entire statement you just quoted is merely a five-dollar phrase that has never actually been translated into policy. All three--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--have been, historically and up to and including the present day, routinely denied to countless numbers of people. It's only something that we pay lip-service to in order that we may feel warm and fuzzy inside when we recount our nation's inception.

I couldn't care less what the DoI says. It was adopted in 1776, or over 200 and some odd years ago. Around the same time that, in the Constitution, it was declared that slaves are to be considered 3/5 persons. We have the ability to improve our ethical views over time by employing ever greater reasoning and moral considerations. Anyway, that entire statement you just quoted is merely a five-dollar phrase that has never actually been translated into policy. All three--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--have been, historically and up to and including the present day, routinely denied to countless numbers of people. It's only something that we pay lip-service to in order that we may feel warm and fuzzy inside when we recount our nation's inception.

I fail to see how advocating that we should not hold human life as sacred is 'improving our ethical views'.